Transcription

1 5 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT SUM COVERAGE I. OVERVIEW OF UNINSURED MOTORIST, UNDERINSURED MOTORIST AND SUM COVERAGES Uninsured motorist ("UM") coverage in New York State is mandatory. Traditionally, an uninsured motorist claim could be made if the tortfeasor was uninsured; if the tortfeasor had a policy of insurance but the carrier disclaimed coverage; or if the tortfeasor drove a hitand- run motor vehicle that came into physical contact with the claimant or his/her vehicle. Underinsurance ("UIM") coverage in New York State is optional, which means the claimant must request this coverage and pay the additional premium in order to enjoy this protection. This coverage is designed to apply if the tortfeasor is covered by a policy of insurance, but the limits are inadequate to properly compensate the injuries sustained by the claimant. Prior to October of 1993, insurance carriers prepared their own UM and UIM endorsements that often set forth significant differences. Under the old approach, a potential gap in coverage could exist. In order to overcome such problems, the Insurance Department prepared a prescribed policy form, the Supplementary Uninsured Motorist "(SUM") endorsement, that affords both UM and UIM protection. 11 N.Y.C.R.R (f). The SUM endorsement became effective on October 1, 1993, when a motor vehicle liability policy was either issued or renewed and the accident occurred subsequent to the issuing or the renewal of the policy. The SUM endorsement removed the gap in coverage by adopting a unified endorsement that affords both uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist protection for accidents that occur in United States or Canada. This is accomplished by the Insuring Agreement defining an "uninsured motor vehicle" to include the following: i. A motor vehicle that is not covered by a liability policy (including a motor vehicle where the policy has been cancelled for non-payment of the premium, a stolen vehicle, a vehicle operated without the permission of the owner, or an unregistered vehicle); ii. iii. iv. A hit-and-run motor vehicle; A motor vehicle covered by a policy of insurance or a bond where the insurer denies coverage or becomes insolvent; and An underinsured motor vehicle. UM coverage is optional, so an insured must request this coverage and pay an additional premium. An insured can still elect to only obtain a bare bones UM endorsement. The Insurance Department prepared the policy form for this

2 endorsement, which provides protection against drivers who are uninsured, but not underinsured. The SUM endorsement is a pro-consumer coverage that allows an insured to protect himself and his family. A bodily injury liability policy only protects third persons who may be involved in a motor vehicle accident. High limits will benefit a stranger, but not provide any protection to one's own family. In contrast, the SUM endorsement pennits one to set a minimum level of financial protection that will potentially be available to cover the pain and suffering and economic loss of the claimant and his or her family. II. THE TRIGGER FOR SUM COVERAGE There are five requirements that must be satisfied in order to make a SUM claim A. The Claimant Must Provide Timely Notice (and Forward Suit Papers) Condition "2" of the SUM endorsement requires a claimant to provide written notice of an intention to make a SUM claim "as soon as practicable". If requested, the claimant must furnish a written statement and/or attend an examination under oath regarding the circumstances behind the accident and the injuries alleged. If a claimant fails to provide timely notice, this will provide the carrier with a basis for denying coverage. There is a related provision in the SUIVI endorsement, Condition "4", that requires a plaintiff, after commencing suit against the tortfeasor, to "immediately" forward a copy of the summons and complaint to the SUM carrier. The failure to do so can result in the forfeiture of SUM coverage only if the carrier can demonstrate that its rights were prejudiced by the delay. Brandon v. Nationwide Mut. lns. Co., 97 N.Y.2d 491,743 N.Y.S.2d 53 (2002). B. The Claimant Must Obtain a Policy Limit Offer Condition "9" of the SUM endorsement requires all liability policies or bonds covering any one negligent person to be exhausted by judgment or settlement. Garcia v. State Farm Ins. Co., 232 A.D.2d 488, 648 N.Y.S.2d 340 (2 nd Dept. 1996); Sutorius v. Hanover Ins. Co., 233 A.D.2d 332, 649 N.Y.S.2d 183 (2 nd Dept. 1996). This requirement retains the necessity for a claimant to demonstrate negligence against at least one responsible party. C. The Bodily Injury Limits for the Plaintiff Must Exceed the Tortfeasor's Bodily Injury Limits Prior to the adoption of the SUM endorsement, there had been some confusion whether the triggering event should focus upon the bodily injury limits or upon the SUM

3 limits for the plaintiff relative to the tortfeasor's bodily injury limits. The SUM endorsement removes this uncertainty by defining an " uninsured motor vehicle" as one where the tortfeasor's bodily injury limits are less than the bodily injury limits for the plaintiff. In Geico v. Young, 39 A.D.3d 751, 835 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2 nd Dept. 2007), the Court recognized that SUM coverage was not triggered because the policy limits for the vehicle occupied the plaintiffs equaled the policy limits for the tortfeasor's vehicle. For hit-and-run accidents, the plaintiff must establish physical contact with an unidentified vehicle, or with an integral part of an unidentified vehicle. Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Killakey, 78 N.Y.2d 325, 574 N.Y.S.2d 927 (1991). In the event of a hit and run accident, the plaintiff needs to file a sworn statement with the UM carrier within ninety (90) days of the accident. The failure to satisfy this condition precedent will result in the plaintiff forfeiting coverage. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Etienne, 46 A.D.3d 825, 848 N.Y.S.2d 312 (2 nd Dept. 2007). D. The Claimant Must Qualify As An "Insured" In the typical situation, a motor vehicle policy with a SUM endorsement is issued to an individual. In that situation, the following persons qualify as an "insured": i. The named insured and spouse. ii. iii. iv. Someone who is related to either the named insured, or spouse, and he/she resides in the same household. Someone who occupies a motor vehicle insured for SUM coverage under the policy a claim is made against. Someone who occupies a motor vehicle cfriven by the named insured or spouse. In the event the motor vehicle policy is issued to a corporation, the following entities are identified as an "insured" pursuant to the SUM endorsement: i. The named insured. However, because the "named insured" is a corporation, no individual qualifies as a "named insured". Thus, the corporate officers, family members of corporate officers, and employees of the corporation do not qualify under this definition. Buckner, Jr. v. MVAIC, 66 N.Y.2d 211,495 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1985); Royal Ins. v. Bennett, 226 A.D.2d 1074, 642 N.Y.S.2d 125 (4 th Dept. 1996). ii. A person who "occupies" the insured vehicle. E. The Loss Must Arise from an "Accident" The SUM endorsement requires a plaintiff's injuries to arise from an accident. There is no coverage for a staged loss or a fraudulent claim. For cases discussing the

5 III. EXCLUSIONS A. The SUM Endorsement Negates Coverage in the Event the Plaintiff Settles with the Tortfeasor Without Obtaining the Consent of the SUM Carrier Exclusion "1" of the SUM endorsement provides that a claimant will forfeit the right to SUM coverage if he or she settles with a tortfeasor without the widtten consent of the SUM carrier. State Farm Auto Ins. Co. v. Blanco, 208 A.D.2d 933, 617 N.Y.S.2d 898 (2 nd Dept. 1994); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Zyburo, 215 A.D.2d 566, 626 N.Y.S.2d 847 (2 nd Dept. 1995). A related provision, Condition "10", directs a plaintiff to provide written notice to the SUM carrier that the defendant has offered his/her policy limits. The SUM carrier then has 30 days to either consent to the settlement, or to agree to tender an amount equal to the tortfeasor's policy litnits and accept an assignment of the claim by the plaintiff/insured against the tortfeasor. If the claimant does not wait 30 days before signing a general release, the claimant will breach this condition precedent to SUM coverage. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kaufmann, 261 A.D.2d 275,690 N.Y.S.2d 269 (1 st Dept. 1999). State Fann Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lucano, 11 A.D.3d 548, 783 N.Y.S.2d 618 (2 nd Dept. 2004); Friedman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 268 A.D.2d 558,703 N.Y.S.2d 198 (2 nd Dept. 2000); State Fann Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Donath, 164 A,D.2d 889, 559 N.Y.S.2d 567 (2 nd Dept. 1990); Aema Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Scirica, 170 A.D.2d 448, 565 N.Y.S.2d 557 (2 nd Dept. 1991); Continental Ins. Co. v. Canni, 192 A.D.2d 651, 596 N.Y.S.2d 471 (2 nd Dept. 1993). B. The SUM Endorsement Negates Coverage If the Claimant Sustains Injury While Occupying a Motor Vehicle that He/She Owns and is Not Covered by the Policy a SUM is Made Against In Cohen v. CHUBB Indem. Ins. Co., 286 A.D.2d 264,729 N.Y.S.2d 105 (1 st Dept. 2001), the claimant sustained injury while operating a motorcycle that he owned and insured with Progressive. The claimant asserted a SUM claim under his wife' s policy with CHUBB seeking to recover the $300,000 limits. CHUBB denied coverage based upon the exclusion pertaining to an insured who sustains injury while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured if that vehicle is not insured for SUM coverage by the policy against which a claim is made. The claimant argued that this exclusion was ambiguous in view of the no-fault endorsement setting forth a definition of "motor vehicle" that did not include a "motorcycle". Consequently, the claimant argued that a SUM claim could be made if one occupied a motorcycle at the time of the accident. The First Department held that the carrier was entitled to summary judgment because it was clear the plaintiff could entertain no reasonable expectation of receiving coverage when he had paid no premium for this coverage. The court further noted that the liability, nofault and SUM sections of a policy are discrete and internally complete coverages, so that a provision in the no-fault endorsement is not dispositive of coverage under the SUM endorsement. Since this provision negating coverage is an exclusion, it is necessary for a carrier to issue a timely denial of coverage, or it will waive the right to do so. Worcester Ins. Co. v. Bettenhauser, 95 N.Y.2d 185,712 N.Y.S.2d 433 (2000); Great American Ins.

6 Co. v. Tomaino, 293 A.D.2d 944,741 N.Y.S.2d 315 (3 rd Dept. 2002) lv. to appl. denied 98 NY2d 611,749 N.Y.S.2d (2002). Further, this exclusion on1y applies if the plaintiff or his/her spouse owns the vehicle. If the vehicle was owned by some other family member, even if it was regularly used by the plaintiff, the exclusion does not apply. See the provision in the SUM endorsement at INSURING AGREEMENTS, 1. Definitions, C. Uninsured Motor Vehicle stating that the term "uninsured motor vehicle" does not include a motor vehicle owned by the named insured, or spouse residing in the same household; Walts v. Masullo-George, 34 A.D.3d 1311, 824 N.Y.S.2d 506, (4 th Dept. 2006). Thus, this exclusion is more narrow than the one in a typical liability policy that negates coverage when a vehicle is not listed as an insured vehicle and the vehicle is either owned by, or regularly furnished or available for the regular use of the named insured or a resident relative. C. The SUM Endorsement Excludes Coverage if the Plaintiff Can Not Establish a "Serious Injury". In Raffellini v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 9 N.Y.3d 196, 848 N.Y.S.2d 1 (2007), the tortfeasor's insurer tendered its $25,000 liability limits. The plaintiff then commenced suit seeking to recover the SUM benefits from his own carrier, State Farm. State Farmraised in its answer the "serious injury" threshold as an affirmative defense. The plaintiff moved to dismiss that defense. The Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff could recover for non-economic loss under the SUM endorsement only if he could establish a "serious injury". The plaintiff argued that the "serious injury" requirement only applied to uninsured motorist claims in view of Insurance Law 3420(f)(1) specifically requiring a "serious injury" for a UM claim while Insurance Law 3420(f)(2) was silent as to whether this requirement existed for a SUM claim. The Court of Appeals cited three reasons for requiring a plaintiff to pass the "serious injury" threshold in order to make a SUM claim. First, the Court of Appeals concluded that the legislative history did not draw a distinction between TJM and SUM coverages with respect to requiring a "serious injury". As a second reason for requiring a "serious injury", the Court of Appeals observed that SUM coverage is intended to provide the insured with the same level of protection that his policy affords to an injured third party. Because the serious injury requirement applies to a typical plaintiff, it should also apply to a plaintiff making a SUM claim. Finally, the Court recognized that the Superintendent of Insurance had included the serious injury requirement in the SUM endorsement. The Court recogmize that this provided "persuasive authority" for enforcing the serious injury requirement, and that the superintendent had the power to adopt regulations even though the implementing statute was silent on certain issues. IV. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL This doctrine recognizes that a party in a later proceeding is precluded from challenging a finding made by a court or arbitrator in an early proceeding under the

7 following circumstances: (1) the same issue is addressed in both proceedings; and (2) the party being precluded had a full and fair opportunity in the earlier proceeding to litigate that issue. The courts have addressed whether this principle can be applied to require the SUM carrier to be bound by the jury verdict or arbitration award from the underlying personal injury case. In Russell vs. New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 11 A.D.3d 668, 783 N.Y.S.2d 404 (2 nd Dept. 2004), the plaintiff obtained a jury verdict against the tortfeasor. The plaintiff then argued that the SUM carrier was bound by that jury verdict. In rejecting that argument, the Second Department held that the SUM carrier is not estopped from contesting the right of the plaintiff to recover SUIV1 benefits when the carrier failed to intervene in the underlying personal injury action. The Court observed that the carrier's duty to pay SUM benefits does not arise until after the plaintiff exhausts all policies covering the defendant. Further, the Court noted that the doctrine of collateral estoppel only applies if the SUM carrier was either a party, or in privity with a party, to the original trial. However, in Culpepper vs. Allstate Ins. Co., 31 A.D.2d 490, 818 N.Y.S.2d 544 (2 nd Dept. 2006), Allstate was both the liability carrier for the tortfeasor and the SUM carrier for the plaintiff. A jury awarded the plaintiff damages against the tortfeasor in the sum of $115,000. Allstate paid its $25,000 liability limits. The plaintiff then pursued a SUM claim against Allstate. The Court held that Allstate was collaterally estopped from challenging the prior award. The Court noted that Allstate was in privity with the tortfeasor on the issue of damages. The courts have also addressed whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be applied to preclude a plaintiff from seeking an amount from a SUM carrier greater than a jury verdict or arbitration awardin the underlying personal injury case. See New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. vs. Reinhardt, 27 A.D.3d 751, 813 N.Y.S.2d 158 (2 nd Dept. 2006). V. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The statute of limitations for UM or SUM claim is six years. For a UM claim, the statute begins either from the date of the accident, or from the time when subsequent events render the offending vehicle uninsured. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the applicability of a later accrual date than the date of the accident. Jenkins v. State Fann Ins. Co., 21 A.D.3d 529, 801 N.Y.S.2d 42 (2 nd Dept. 2005); Preferred Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rand, 15 IVIisc. 3d 1112 (A), 2007 WL (Sup. Ct. Richmond Co. 2007); Travelers Ind. Co. v. Yagudaev, 11 Misc. 3d 1080 (A), 819 N.Y.S.2d 852 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2006). For a SUM claim, the statute of limitations accrues on the date of the settlement between the plaintiff and the tortfeasor. Continental Ins. Co. v. Richt, 253 A.D.2d 818, 677 N.Y.S.2d 634 (2 nd Dept. 1998); In the Matter of the Arbitration between Allstate Ins. Co. ancl Schelter, 280 A.D.2d 910,720 N.Y.S.2d 685 (4 th Dept. 2001); Alkity Ins. Co. v.

Prepared by: Barton L. Slavin, Esq. 1. Identify Insurance Company - On the Police Report there is a three digit code that identifies the insurance company for a vehicle. The following link will take you

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a

If you have questions or would like further information regarding Uninsured-Underinsured Motorist Coverage, please contact: Jennifer Medenwald 312-540-7588 jmedenwald@querrey.com Result Oriented. Success

59202 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Transportation Committee March 2004 UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY This memorandum reviews the law on uninsured

Filed 8/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B242429

A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 By: Mark Kane and HayDen Kane By reviewing this document the reader acknowledges that he or she has reviewed, understands

CHAPTER 5 AN ACT SB 411 Relating to personal injury protection benefits; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 742.500, 742.502, 742.504, 742.506, 742.524 and 742.544. Be It Enacted by the People of

REL: 06/30/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2009 SESSION LAW 2009-561 SENATE BILL 749 AN ACT TO REVISE AND CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE IN MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY

20-279.21. "Motor vehicle liability policy" defined. (a) A "motor vehicle liability policy" as said term is used in this Article shall mean an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance, certified

New York State Department of Financial Services Home Regulation 68 index page In order to assist you in viewing Regulation 68 in its most current form, this webpage has incorporated the text of the 1st

Public Act No. 14-20 AN ACT CONCERNING UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE OFFSETS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. Section 38a-336

INSURANCE AND MISSOURI LAW After suffering a significant injury, most people understandably concentrate on the relatively straightforward elements of damages and liability. In doing so, however, injured

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY ELIZABETH RASKAUSKAS ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) C.A. No. CPU6-09-000991 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE ) DIRECT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JENNIFER HELGESON and ANDREW HELGESON, Appellants, No. 41371-0-II v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN a foreign corporation,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-1100 FRANCIS J. GUGLIELMELLI Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

What are No-Fault benefits? "No-fault benefits" are also often referred to as "Personal Injury Protection benefits or "PIP Benefits" for short. No Fault refers to insurance coverage provided by your own

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

1 of 8 6/25/2008 3:39 PM BULLETIN 96-7 FREQUENT PROBLEMS FOUND IN FILINGS Property and Casualty Lines Over the years we have found that insurance companies consistently fail to make their forms and filings

No-Fault Automobile Insurance By Margaret C. Jasper, Esq. Prior to the enactment of state no-fault insurance legislation, recovery for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident were subject

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION OF AMERICA, AN ILLINOIS : STOCK CORPORATION : Plaintiff, : : v. : : KEVIN BEAUCHAMP

ONYX BUSINESS AUTO POLICY COVERAGE Various provisions in this policy restrict overage Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered. Throughout this policy

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY MARTHA E. CONVERSE and ) DAVID CONVERSE, husband ) and wife, ) C.A. No. N11C-04-028 CLS ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM MUTUAL

1. ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK: This doctrine was abolished in Oregon. ORS 31.620(2). But see Comparative Negligence below. 2. COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE: The Court may deduct from a damages award certain collateral

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579

SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU Present: HON. ZELDA JONAS Justice In the Matter of the Application for an Order Temporarily Staying all Arbitration Proceedings of INTERBORO

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

Property and Casualty Review Standards Checklist General Filing Requirements apply to all property and casualty lines of insurance. Once you have reviewed the general filing requirements, please page to

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE SCDOI FORM NUMBER 2006 [REVISED JANUARY 1, 2007] OFFER OF ADDITIONAL UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE AND OPTIONAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE Automobile liability

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Act 198 of 1965 AN ACT providing for the establishment, maintenance and administration of a motor vehicle accident claims fund for the payment of damages for injury to

================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 22, Issue 3 (1961) 1961 Automobile Liability Policy Held to Cover Stolen

11 NYCRR 60-1.1 OFFICIAL COMPILATION OF CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK TITLE 11. INSURANCE DEPARTMENT CHAPTER III. POLICY AND CERTIFICATE PROVISIONS SUBCHAPTER B. PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

Matter of Matter of Bobak (AIG Claims Servs., Inc.) 2012 NY Slip Op 05453 Decided on July 6, 2012 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

The Virginia State Bar requires that all lawyers set forth the following regarding case results: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY DIANE ANNESTELLA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE : COMPANY, a foreign corporation, : NATIONWIDE MUTUAL : INSURANCE

Insurance Code section 11580.2 (a) (1) No policy of bodily injury liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle, except for policies that